That there exist laws of nature is debated. — Olivier5
But we know for sure that certain human beings historically did put together the concepts, the math and the interpretation of General Relativity. They did not receive those things from the gods. — Olivier5
Phenomenology as the basis for quantum physics...? — Banno
Hmm. "derived" might not be the right word here. Russell's project failed. We know that for any mathematical axiomatisation there will be truths that cannot be derived. — Banno
It's also fundamental to understanding quantum physics that our mathematical equations detach themselves from the internal logic of our human perception. — Christoffer
Phenomenology puts a spotlight on the difference between our internal, human perception of something and the actual reality we measure and research. — Christoffer
My point was merely that the logic of math for measuring reality does not rely on our perception or the "aesthetics" of math as an invented language. — Christoffer
"the internal logic of our human perception" — Banno
Where? What could an "internal, human perception of something" be? — Banno
Seems to me that we can make up whatever pure maths we like, then choose some of that to make use of in describing how things are. So we do make maths up. — Banno
But I'm not talking about what practically matters. I'm talking about what matters to the philosophical questions on epistemology and ontology. We want to know if the things we see exist independently of us, and if they are (independently) as they appear to be. We want to know if a thing's appearance justifies any claims we make about what that thing is (independently) like. If you're not interested in these questions then by all means ignore them, but if you are then you can't address them simply by arguing that "I see a tree" is the conventional way to speak in English, and this seems to be where so many in this discussion get lost. — Michael
We didn't invent general relativity, we discovered these fundamental functions of reality, and we invented concepts to be able to calculate, measure and harness those functions. — Christoffer
They said the same thing about the universal gravitation theory of Isaac Newton. Until it was superseded by a better theory: Einstein's. What makes you certain that GR won't be discarded as incomplete or imperfect in the future? — Olivier5
That's not how science works. Theories don't get thrown out of the window because something else explains things better, they get added, and mixed together, one theory helps explain something else further or helps explain problems with the first theory. — Christoffer
There are revolutions in science though, such as the Copernican revolution. — Olivier5
Understanding science requires understanding the process, the practice, the history, and the terminology long before even touching upon the actual theories and hypotheses presented. — Christoffer
As a matter of fact, I have a much better understanding of science, its methods, history and current status than you seem to believe, on the rather flimsy basis of a mere epistemological disagreement between us. — Olivier5
From our perceptual perspective, it's extremely different to grasp time as something other than how we experience it, even if the quantum equations or measurable results point in directions that feel alien to our perception. — Christoffer
Not if I use a clock. In any case, there is more to a conception of time than mere perception. A child knows that an hour can go in a flash or take an age.Your perception of time is extremely subjective, — Christoffer
I still don't see how. We "grasp" periods of billions of years and billionths of seconds, and calculate accurate relativistic times. — Banno
Not if I use a clock. In any case, there is more to a conception of time than mere perception. A child knows that an hour can go in a flash or take an age. — Banno
You seemed to indicate a relation between phenomenology and physics, but what that might be remains obscure. — Banno
For example, the basic point in relativity; that two people going at different speeds will in relation to each other experience a temporal shift; the larger the difference, the larger the shift; but the subjective experience of the two persons will not change, they will experience their own time as if nothing has changed. — Christoffer
So, it seems material objects are actually theoretical constructs, i.e., ideas we experience based on our sensory input. — Art48
Kant has a lot to answer for.
The hypothesis is that what we see might be totally different to a conjectured, inaccessible world about which we can say nothing.
One can't have it both ways, supposing that the hypothesised unseen world both causes what we see and yet remains outside of our considerations.
This applies to the vatted brain. Should one hypothesis that what one sees is an illusion, one thereby hypothesises a meta-world, a world in which the illusion may take place. For the vatted brain, this is the vat; for Neo, his pod. What one cannot conclude is that everything is an illusion.
If the phenomenalist supposes that we cannot deduce from our perceptions what the world is like, he has been shown to be mistaken. If the phenomenalist supposes that we cannot say anything about how the world actually is, his view is utterly irrelevant. — Banno
That is kind of the equivalent of saying you know better because you say you know better. — Christoffer
What's the point you're arguing for? — Christoffer
The "basic point" of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.
Your two people will objectively agree that time is slower for one than the other. It's not an example of a subjective, phenomenological difference.
The notion that phenomenalism is central to physics is flawed. — Banno
No, just saying you tend to assume a bit too much about what I know, based on too little. A mere philosophical disagreement is insufficient ground to conclude that someone doesn't know the history of science. — Olivier5
That science is a human activity, and hence inherently subjective. A scientist is and can only be a subject, i.e. a spectator and actor in/at the world. — Olivier5
The notion that phenomenalism is central to physics is flawed. — Banno
Whether we think of the diamond as "soft until touched" or "always hard" before our experience, therefore, is irrelevant. Under both theories the diamond feels the same, and can be used in the same way. However, the first theory is far more difficult to work with, so of less value. — Richard B
The scientist is a human, science is not. The whole point of science is to detach human biases and subjectivity in order to prove truths. — Christoffer
Another way to say the same thing is: truth requires a language, and a language requires several human subjects speaking it. — Olivier5
Truth is generally defined as an accurate representation of some state of affairs. — Olivier5
Take 'objective' in its pure sense as unbiased, and science's goal is to objectively settle what a community ought to believe about the world. — Pie
And the product of this process is still a representation, i.e. something different from the actual world. The map is not the territory. — Olivier5
Could you provide an example of words representing nonwords ? — Pie
such as the examples I am writing about right now? — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.